CIUDAD DE MÉXICO (12 September 2025) — La Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (COFECE) de México ha anunciado la conclusión de su investigación sobre el mercado de plataformas de comercio electrónico. La mayoría de los comisionados se abstuvo de imponer medidas correctivas debido a la falta de consenso sobre las conclusiones de la investigación. 

El investigador senior en política de Competencia del International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), Mario Zúñiga, ha señalado sobre la decisión que:

Si bien es de elogiar la prudencia del pleno de la COFECE, absteniéndose finalmente de aplicar medidas correctivas, es importante señalar que el informe de la autoridad investigativa sobre el mercado de comercio electrónico empleó una definición de mercado extremadamente restringida (incluyendo únicamente a “grandes plataformas en múltiples categorías a nivel nacional”), que ignora sustitutos importantes, como las tiendas en línea especializadas y los minoristas tradicionales (con canales de venta relevantes online y offline). Esta definición lleva a una conclusión errónea de “dominio”.

Además, ciertos comportamientos o modelos de negocio que se han considerado “barreras de entrada” (como la exhibición preferencial o mecanismos de compra preferencial para ciertos productos, o soluciones logísticas integradas verticalmente) son en realidad un factor de competencia: integraciones verticales pro competitivas, que diferencian plataformas, permiten ahorros de costos y brindan beneficios concretos a los consumidores en forma de precios más bajos y una experiencia de compra más fluida.

También recomendamos esta publicación de marzo de 2024 en Truth on the Market sobre la investigación de la COFECE, realizada por Mario y el presidente del ICLE, Geoffrey A. Manne, así como sus comentarios sobre la investigación presentados ante la COFECE en abril de 2024.

Para programar una entrevista con Mario, contacte con Jim Fellinger en [email protected]. 

Acerca del ICLE:

El International Center for Law & Economics es un centro de investigación independiente y sin fines de lucro que trabaja con más de cien afiliados académicos y centros de investigación de todo el mundo. Los académicos del ICLE promueven el uso de las metodologías del Análisis Económico del Derecho para informar los debates sobre políticas públicas.

BRUSSELS (10 September 2025) — The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) has scholars available to provide expert commentary on the European Commission’s 2025 review of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) Guidelines, which seek input on the role of competitiveness, innovation, and digitalization in merger control.

ICLE submitted formal comments to the Commission that argue for a predictable, evidence-based, and effects-oriented approach to merger review. The authors argue that the guidelines should be anchored in sound economic principles and avoid structural presumptions or vague public-policy goals.

Arguments from ICLE’s Submission:

• Competitiveness and Scale: The new guidelines should make clear that “competitiveness” is a byproduct of well-functioning markets and sound economic analysis, rather than a justification for selective intervention. ICLE’s submission argues that scale is increasingly necessary for firms to compete effectively on a global level, especially in technology and innovation-driven sectors. Mergers can be a critical avenue to achieve this scale by providing access to capital, intangible assets, and new markets. This perspective aligns with the Draghi Report, which recognized that scale is often a prerequisite for sustained productivity growth.
• Innovation and Dynamic Competition: ICLE’s submission argues that the current guidelines are conceptually limited in their treatment of dynamic, innovation-centered competition. The scholars contend that the relationship between competition and innovation is complex and non-monotonic, with both large and small firms playing complementary roles. They emphasize that, while small firms often pioneer disruptive ideas, larger firms provide the scale and investment needed for widespread adoption and sustained R&D. The analysis cautions against overreliance on theories like “killer acquisitions”.
• Digitalization and Market Dynamics: ICLE scholars advise against creating a bespoke legal framework for digital markets. Instead, the Commission should use its existing analytical tools with greater discipline. They urge the Commission to avoid treating data as an “insurmountable moat” and to recognize that competition is not limited to “in-the-market” rivalry, but also includes fierce “for-the-market” contests.

Read the full comments on ICLE’s website. 

ICLE Director of Competition Policy Dirk Auer shared the following:

“The EU’s merger-control framework has a well-earned reputation for being predictable and grounded in robust effects-based analysis. The new guidelines should build on this strength, not squander it. In dynamic, innovation-driven sectors, scale and investment are often prerequisites for success. Prohibiting mergers that combine complementary assets to achieve this scale—particularly when there is no evidence of market foreclosure—would be a mistake. Such a move would stifle innovation, harm consumers, and ultimately weaken Europe’s global competitiveness”.

About ICLE

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

BRUSSELS (8 September 2025) – The €2.95 billion fine the European Commission has assessed Google for allegedly abusive practices in online-advertising technology could further complicate EU-U.S. trade negotiations, according to International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) scholars, who caution that competition policy should not be wielded as a tool to generate revenue.  

ICLE Director of Competition Policy Dirk Auer shared the following: 

“The European Commission’s call for a breakup is a serious misstep that risks escalating trade tensions and ultimately harming European consumers. The breakup remedy touted by the Commission is largely unprecedented in this type of proceeding, and the Commission’s press release betrays a lack of conceptual clarity about how Google’s conduct is supposed to harm consumers. While the fine is portrayed as modest, it represents a substantial share of Google’s AdX revenue and could chill innovation in the sector. Without a clear consumer-welfare rationale, such measures are unlikely to deliver the benefits Europeans deserve”.

To schedule an interview with Dirk, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected]. 

Dirk argued in a May op-ed in The Hill that the EU’s fines could have dire consequences amid the current trade spat with the United States: “Europe’s tech battle could cost it the trade war”.

About ICLE 

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

PORTLAND, Ore. (Sept. 2, 2025) – Antitrust scholars from the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) are available to discuss the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s just-released decision in the remedies phase of the United States v. Google case.

The court had earlier ruled in the liability phase of the trial that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and illegally maintained a monopoly by entering into exclusive agreements to secure default distribution for its general search engine.

Relevant Resources From ICLE Scholars

• Scholarship: A Critical Analysis of the Google Search Antitrust Decision by Geoffrey A. Manne
• Scholarship: The Google Search Decision: The Merits, Fate, and Potential Impact of the U.S. District Court’s Decision on the Question of Liability by Daniel J. Gilman
• Scholarship: Findings of Fact May Be Stubborn Things on Appeal, Even if They Are Not Facts by Daniel J. Gilman
• Amicus: Law & Economics Scholars Amicus to US District Court in United States v Google
• Op-Ed: Perilous Remedies by Brian Albrecht
• Op-Ed: Government Hasn’t Made Its Antitrust Case Against Google by Daniel J. Gilman
• Blog Post: Avoiding Misguided Remedies in the Google Search Antitrust Case by Geoffrey A. Manne
• Blog Post: The Paradox of Google Search Remedies by Brian Albrecht
• Blog Post: DOJ’s Not-so-Modest Proposal by Daniel J. Gilman
• Podcast: Geoff Manne on the Google Search Trial

To schedule an interview with ICLE President Geoffrey A. Manne or other ICLE scholars, contact R.J. Lehmann at [email protected].

About ICLE

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

BRUSSELS (Aug. 21, 2025) — The UK Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) proposal to designate Apple and Google’s mobile ecosystems as holding strategic market status are based on a static and incomplete understanding of competition in digital markets, International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) argue in regulatory comments to the agency. 

The comments note that the CMA’s investigations inaccurately portray the dynamic mobile-ecosystem market as a static duopoly. The agency’s heavy focus on user “stickiness” overlooks intense and iterative waves of competition for the market, waged through constant improvements in the factors that matter most to consumers. Indeed, both Apple and Google actively build tools to lower switching costs, a clear sign of competition. 

ICLE Director of Competition Policy Dirk Auer notes:

The CMA’s proposed decisions seem to mistake the stable outcomes of intense, dynamic rivalry for a state of limited competition. By focusing on metrics like stable market share, the authority risks overlooking the fierce nonprice competition that defines the sector, such as camera technology, processing power, security features and AI integration. These are not the actions of firms insulated from competitive pressure, but of companies in a constant battle for the future of mobile technology. Overly broad regulatory remedies would not only fail to promote competition but would also erode the very differentiation that gives consumers meaningful choice and fuels the UK’s tech-sector growth.

The comments also challenge the idea of consumer “lock-in,” pointing out that the “low” switching rates observed by the CMA are actually higher than in many industries typically thought of as competitive. Lack of user switching may also be a sign of customer satisfaction with a differentiated product. 

The comments are available here. To schedule an interview with Dirk, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].

About ICLE  

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

PORTLAND, Ore. (Aug. 15, 2025) — Government-led digital public infrastructure (DPI) projects can achieve broad reach quickly, but often stifle competition and innovation and foment politicized decision-making, a new white paper from the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) concludes. 

Authored by ICLE Senior Scholar Julian Morris, “The Governance of Digital Public Infrastructure: Case Studies” examines systems for digital identity and real-time payments in India, Brazil, Estonia, and the United States, among others, and highlights the tradeoffs between government-run systems and those led by the private sector or public-private partnerships. 

The paper argues that decentralized governance models, which rely on market forces, tend to be more dynamic and responsive, while reducing the risk of technological lock-in.

“Digital public infrastructure can be a powerful tool for economic development and financial inclusion, but its governance is the most critical factor for its long-term success,” Morris said.

He cautioned that the history of government-run systems like India’s UPI or Brazil’s Pix have shown that such systems tend to distort markets and favor specific players.

“Our research shows that when governments become operators, they often create conflicts of interest that lead to market distortions, stifle private-sector innovation, and ultimately harm consumers. It’s better for governments to act as a neutral enabler, setting the rules of the road while letting competition drive innovation,” Morris added.

The full paper is available here. To schedule an interview with Julian, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].  

About ICLE      

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

PORTLAND, Ore. (June 18, 2025) – The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled correctly when it found that a federal jury’s $4.7 billion damages award against the National Football League (NFL) was miscalculated, scholars with the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) argue in an amicus brief submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the In re: NFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation case. 

The brief cautions the circuit court against judicial interventions that could undermine procompetitive business practices, emphasizing that antitrust remedies must be grounded in proven theories of competitive harm. It emphasizes that the NFL’s exclusive-distribution agreements historically have spurred innovation, pointing to evidence that the arrangements with DirecTV and now YouTube TV have driven technological advancement and investment in content delivery. The plaintiffs’ proposed “à la carte” alternative is fundamentally speculative and should not be the goal of an antitrust case.

Read the full brief here.

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht offered the following comment on the case:

This case illustrates why courts must demand rigorous economic evidence in antitrust cases before disrupting successful business models. The district court correctly recognized that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony relied on speculation, rather than sound economic analysis, and the jury spun the weak evidence further on its head when awarding a headline-grabbing multi-billion fine. NFL Sunday Ticket’s bundling of games and exclusive-distribution agreements have demonstrably helped viewer access, while spurring decades of innovation in sports delivery. It is imperative that the court’s decision rests on sound economic reasoning to ensure antitrust law genuinely promotes consumer welfare and innovation.

To schedule an interview with Brian, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].

For more on this topic from ICLE scholars, read the tl;dr explainer by Ben Sperry “Live Sports, Video Competition, and Antitrust” and the Truth on the Market post by Eric Fruits “The $14 Billion Fumble.” 

About ICLE    

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

PORTLAND, Ore. (June 9, 2025) – The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s recently announced plans to make state eligibility for the federal Broadband, Equity, Access & Deployment (BEAD) program conditional on not enforcing artificial-intelligence regulations could risk undermining innovation in both sectors, according to International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout.

While the proposed 10-year moratorium on enforcement of state AI laws would be a welcome policy change, Stout said the long-term implications of combining the two unrelated areas of policy could have unforeseen consequences. He offered the following statement:

Ill-conceived state AI laws limit innovation and investment and deserve a pause. But tying the moratorium to BEAD funding—dollars already allocated and diligently sought by states and providers to bridge the digital divide—would be a bad precedent for Congress to set. These are unrelated policy areas, and this action risks undermining both public trust and program efficacy. While it might be the least-harmful option, given procedural constraints, it’s a blunt instrument that shouldn’t become standard practice. Congress needs to establish a more principled and sustainable approach to asserting national AI leadership. 

Relevant Resources From ICLE Scholars

• Commentary: Federal Preemption and AI Regulation: A Law and Economics Case for Strategic Forbearance
• Regulatory Comments: ICLE Comments to House Energy and Commerce Committee Privacy Working Group
• Regulatory Comments: ICLE Comments on the NTIA’s Proposed BEAD Alternative Broadband Technology Guidance
• Blog Post: Lutnick’s BEAD Pivot: Progress Through Pragmatism

To schedule an interview with Kristian, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].  

About ICLE  

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.

BRUSSELS (2 June 2025) – Today’s decision by the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) to sanction Amazon for its use of  “offer-selection filters” to determine third-party sellers’ eligibility for the Buy Box fails to appreciate the consumer benefits that such practices enable, scholars with the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) said.

Publication of the FCO’s preliminary views caps a multi-year investigation of Amazon’s use of the filter algorithms, which surface the most competitive offers and demote third-party listings deemed uncompetitive. The FCO characterized the filters as “price coordination”, akin to an impermissible most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause—a contractual obligation that prevents a seller from offering lower prices on rival platforms. 

But ICLE scholars note the filters instead aim to reduce consumers’ search costs, thereby preserving trust in independent merchants. Also, unlike an MFN, Amazon’s system does not restrict sellers from listing lower prices elsewhere. Instead, it benchmarks a seller’s listing against external market prices to determine Buy Box eligibility. 

ICLE Director of Competition Policy Dirk Auer offered the following comment:

We want to see a robust and competitive digital market that benefits European consumers, but the FCO’s continued focus on Amazon’s offer-selection filters raises significant questions about regulatory consistency within the EU. These filters are a pro-consumer marketplace design choice, distinct from anticompetitive MFNs. Challenging practices that align with EU commitments and the DMA could undermine the very purpose of harmonized digital market regulations and send a concerning signal about the extent to which national authorities can operate outside of agreed-upon EU frameworks.

To schedule an interview with Dirk about this investigation, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].

About ICLE

The International Center for Law & Economics is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than eighty academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates.